If women were ordained to the priesthood, how would we have to re-interpret our temple ceremony? For one, could we have female officiators in the endowment ceremony? During various parts of the ceremony, the officiator either plays the role of God, or Peter. Peter is obviously a man, and “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22). Is there a way that a woman could symbolically portray God. Would Peter have to become a generic apostle if portrayed by a woman?
Does the Family Proclamation provide a little wiggle room? It reads: “ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God.” If females are created in the image of God, can a woman portray God?
In the early days of the church, men could be vicariously baptized for women. For example, Margaret Young says that Elijah Abel was baptized on behalf of his deceased mother. Could this practice be re-instituted?
Wheat & Tares 
What? LDS temples already have female officiators. They administer rites and priesthood ordinances to females, just as male officiators administer rites and priesthood ordinances to males.
Some early proxy work was done cross-gender, but I attribute this to a limited understanding–really a misunderstanding– of the doctrine, rather than a distinct change.
One amendment: While I don’t see any change in female temple roles in my lifetime (the next 30 years, at least) perhaps the female officiators could pray (i.e. act as voice in the prayer circle).
I had been through the endowment literally dozens of times before before I made the connection (in the SLC temple) that the male officiators in the room were the same as some characters on the screen! IIRC, “James” always leads the prayer, but if this were de-coupled from the larger alligorical story, I don’t see why I woman couldn’t teach them. Although I should hasten to add that I’m no temple expert, and there’s probably something obvious that I’m missing.
Clark, I am referring to the person who stands behind the altar during the presentation of the endowment. It is ALWAYS a male, as are the people behind the veil. Could the people behind the veil be women, or the man behind the altar? If so, there is going to need to be some new interpretations of the endowment by the First Presidency and Q12.
I like your idea that a female could lead the prayer circle, but yes that too is only performed by a man currently. Additionally, the leaders in the room are men, and only men call call up the audience to the veil.
Guy t
the patriarchal order is from eternity to eternity. I dont think the temple will change in any major way.
Guy, the positions you just mentioned (The man behind the curtain, behind the altar, etc.) represent male characters that are central to the presentation endowment. Asking women to assume these roles isn’t even realistic.
I guess I agree with Winifred on this one.
“I dont think the temple will change in any major way.”
I would say removing the oath of vengeance and the penalties were rather major when they occurred. I don’t agree that change is any less likely than humans decide to make it.
Two hundred years is barely a sample of “from eternity to eternity” but it’s already demonstrated something.
I hope the women of the church dont choose feminism over exaltation. Isnt it better to be a queen and a priestess to your husband than to be alone singly and separately forever and ever?
It would be better for women to be a queen and priestess to God in conjunction with her husband, rather than be subservient to her husband. Exaltation isn’t an either/or proposition. If we can make all alike male and female, bond and free, black and white (as Nephi says), there is no reason to make women unequal and put them underneath their husband. Remember, the endowment changed in 1991 to allow women more freedom to hearken to her husband “as he hearkens to God.” If he isn’t hearkening, she has no need to obey unrighteous dominion. Pre-1991, she needed to obey even in unrighteous dominion according to the wording of the day.
And if God is part of an eternal family, why are women missing from the Godhead if they are equal? It would be nice if Heavenly Mother were the Holy Ghost to fit the Mormon view that families are forever. Otherwise, only the men are forever, and the women are in the closet.
These are good questions, and I think they get to the heart of some of the issues women would have if they were made equal with regards to priesthood.
The officiator stands in for Peter and Elohiem, so if a woman did it, that might call into question God’s gender. Or, it would highlight the fact that our Heavenly Mother (who is said to exist) is distinctly missing from any kind of representation. If men and women are equal in their roles in the priesthood, why aren’t God and Goddesses equal in heaven?
Mh
humans have zero power to determine how things organized after this life.
if you want to get somewhere, you have to see what the rules of the game are and follow them. feminists or anyone else are absolutely powerless to change the rules of the game.
FWIW I think women used to covenant to obey the law of Adam as he obeyed or hearkened unto the law of the Lord. I think that particular covenant has always had the implied, if not express, righteous dominion of Adam at its core. I, too, don’t think we’ll have changes in the officiating roles of men and women in the temple any time soon, but you never know.
Winifred, More a question of whether we understand it correctly, obviously we can’t change it.
Our understanding of what God required, has changed over time.
I expect within 10 years women will hold the priesthood equally with men, and the temple ceremony will be modified. Women already wear the robes of the holy priesthood “so they can officiate in the ordinances thereof”
I don’t believe the ideal, the celestial, or the Godlike, could treat females as lesser.
I believe our heavenly parents are equal in power and authority.
The time frame is because, I think all the over 80 Apostles should have beenreplaced, by much more progressive, younger, group of leaders.
Imagine a first presidency of Holland Uchtdorf, etc. We could remove the conservative pacakaging and leave a Gospel that could go to the whole earth.
does anyone reading this believe that Heavenly Father is not the one completely and totally in charge? since we are talking about women officiating in the priesthood I don’t think it’s a woman’s place to do that. There are some feminist websites advocating the following and doing this
1. praying to Heavenly parents instead of Heavenly Father. we are specifically commanded to pray in the name of the Father. advocating praying to Heavenly parents is idolatry.
2. supporting gay marriage. if lds theology teaches that only a man and a woman who are faithful can live as husband and wife forever, how can LDS people support gay marriage?
3. if we had female apostles I believe they would be pushing for these evil things
Theater has a very long tradition of cross-gender casting. In theory, I don’t have a problem with that in the temple drama, but in practice I don’t see it happening any time soon. Keep in mind that in temples that do live endowments, casting a female temple worker as Elohim or Peter would mean that she performs that role throughout the ritual, not just when that character is officiating at the altar or behind the veil. For that matter, there’s theoretically nothing now that prevents a male temple worker from being cast in the role of Eve (whether on-screen or in on-stage), but I imagine that any cross-casting would take some getting used to for most people.
Fine English pantomime tradition Left Field, but would raise all manner of eyebrows in wards and stakes I’ve been in. It was absolutely forbidden in roadshows when I was growing up.
Yes Winifred, as I understand it Elohiem is a plural word that could cover both father and mother acting together, equal in power and authority.
As it says in the introduction to declaration 2 on the priesthood “all are alike unto God black and white, bond and free, male and female”
If all are alike, can males be singled out for authority over females?
How did this statement get attached to a declaration on the priesthood? That male and female are alike unto God, when we insist on treating them differently, especially with regard to priesthood.
If women receive the priesthood, there would be many possibilities for the temple ceremony. One option would be no change at all, except for including an ordination to the priesthood for women in the washings and annointings. Another option would be to allow men or women to be the officiators at the altar. I’m aware of no doctrinal pronouncement that cross-gender casting is prohibited, it seems to be tradition, probably based on our puritan sensitivities. Also, the temple endowment could be changed to include some kind of role for Heavenly Mother. Perhaps a couple could officiate at the altar as our Heavenly Parents. You could introduce new characters like Mary the mother of Jesus or Mary Magdalene. The possibilities are endless.
Did anyone complain when they took the penalties out of the 1991 endowment? Did anyone complain when they made it easier on the elderly by not standing up so much in the endowment? Did anyone complain when they went from “long-john” garments to short sleeve and knee-length garments? Did anyone complain when they decided to simply “sprinkle” during the washing and anointing, rather than touch all parts of your body? Did anyone complain when you can wear your own garment in the clothing ceremony, rather than have you take it off and put it on after each person for the proxy ceremony? Why don’t we have the preacher in the endowment like we did pre-1991?
The point is that the endowment has changed a lot in my lifetime, and it has changed even more since the days of Joseph Smith. It seems that Winifred objects more to people asking for changes, rather than the changes themselves. Am I right?
If God is so in charge of the endowment, why does He keep changing the endowment so much? Should we go back to standing and sitting more?
first things first – get rid of the veil in the prayer circle. Women should not have to hide their faces from God when participating in the true order of prayer. How demeaning.
“Did anyone complain when . . . “&c, &c, &c
Yep. It’s one of the universal human (and possibly feline) traits. Doesn’t matter what changes or what doesn’t, someone will complain about it.
I’ve never heard of anyone complain Frank.
I must just be drawn to people who complain. Probably why I keep reading the Bloggernacle. 😉
I’ve never heard anyone complain of the changes, esp my grandparents who served as officiators – each time changes came there was much rejoicing, esp with the one where they don’t have to stand up so many times 🙂
Left Field – “For that matter, there’s theoretically nothing now that prevents a male temple worker from being cast in the role of Eve (whether on-screen or in on-stage), but I imagine that any cross-casting would take some getting used to for most people.”
How does procreation fit in to all that – the reason for eating the fruit in the first place?
MH – I think the preacher was my favorite character back then although it bothered me a lot that we made non-lds preachers look like idiots in a temple session we called spiritual. I don’t think God appreciated it.
Pouching – I complained(that’s for you MH.) about the veil thing in Sunday Shcool class and the sisters trounced me for it. So, that’s it for that.
As far as changes in the presentations, it has to come through the leaders, so just tough it out. I remember, in the first, or one of the first films, When Elohim came to talk to Adam and Eve after they had eaten the fruit, Elohim called for Adam to come to him and when Adam didn’t come, they had Elohim take a couple of steps forward and call out in a frustrated manner asking where he was. I was appalled at such stage blocking – making Elohim look like He just didn’t know where Adam was – like He just wouldn’t be able to find him. In the next film that was changed and has never reverted. Like I say, just tough it out. Maybe I should have gone to the temple president.